Defending the Separation of Laws! Keep Fanatics Off OUR Constitution!

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Saturday that his plan to establish a Palestinian state by August 2011 remains on course.

In an interview with Channel 2, Fayyad denied that the Palestinians aim to seek unilateral recognition or any other alternative to a two-state solution.

Fayyad is credited with an economic upturn in the West Bank and improving law and order after a decade of violence. He has earned praise for taking steps to build a Palestinian state from the ground up and by renouncing violence against Israel.

In a rare address to the Israeli public, he urged people not to give up hope for peace.

He said in the interview broadcast Saturday that “we should not be discouraged because we have failed so many times before.” [read more]

A suspect was arrested Sunday on preliminary charges of suspicion of murder and rape in the disappearance of Poway teen Chelsea King.

The suspect, identified as registered sex offender John Albert Gardner III, was arrested at a landmark restaurant and bar on the west side of Lake Hodges, Hernedez Hide-A-Way, on Lake Drive near Del Dios Highway at 4:30 p.m., according to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

The 30-year-old resident of Lake Elsinore in Riverside County is described as being 6′2″ and 230 pounds. He has a previous conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age.

Gardner is scheduled to be arraigned at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 3, in Department 12 at San Diego Superior Court downtown.

Gardner’s mother lives in the Westwood development of San Diego near Rancho Bernardo Community Park and Lake Hodges. It’s believed he had been staying there for several days.

I’ve been saying all along the Mormons and other religious fanatics were telling people lies just to get the votes they needed to win, which by the way was about 52% barely making it, so you know that there’s some bias there. We have them in every society there’s always that 2% of bigotry in society that we can do without, and we wouldn’t being going throught this religious trial, paid for by taxpayers, fighting for the civil rights of Californian’s to be treated equally.

Perhaps it is because I’m Jewish, a Lesbian, married to a Black woman and living in Orange County that I am so highly attuned to the propaganda generated by the proponents of prop 8. Maybe there is something in my historical memory that insists that I be hyper-alert to dangerous rhetoric, given the knowledge that for centuries, propaganda has been used to stigmatize, marginalize, oppress, violate, and annihilate people like my wife and me. Like so many others, I was looking forward to watching the trial broadcast on YouTube because I knew that people would finally get to see for themselves the bigotry and lies that were at the heart of prop 8; they would get to see the testimonies of Kristin Perry & Sandra Stier, and Paul Katami & Jeffrey Zarrillo. Surely this would move many hearts and minds, regardless of the verdict.

When the media started paying attention to the battle over whether or not the trial would be broadcast, I noticed the comments coming from the defense. We know they didn’t want people to hear and see the testimonies; broadcasting the trial would prevent them from spinning the facts and might allow a reasonable public to hear the truth and identify with the very sympathetic plaintiffs. But with their spin, the propaganda began. Once again, they were attempting to control the public perception of gays and lesbians. There they were on the major news networks, talking about risking the safety of their clients and their clients’ families, and about needing to protect “the children.” This is the same propaganda that was used to dehumanize Blacks here in America and abroad, and Jews (and LGBTs), in nazi Germany. The rhetoric makes us into predators who pray on children and angry, out-of-control monsters who will destroy civilization. [read this article]

Those fanatics will try to argue that there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. Yet it’s very obvious that there is a Separation, even in common knowledge of most American’s. I like this quote: god has no role in government; Christianity has no role in government. The founding father’s made this clear.

The most important assertion in this document is that “… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Note that the power of government is derived not from god but from the people. No appeal is made in this document to god for authority of any kind. In no case are any powers given to religion in the affairs of man.

Remember, too, that this document was not written to form or found a government, but was stating intent meant to appeal to an audience with European sensibilities. Only four times is there any reference at all to higher powers, specifically: laws of nature and of nature’s god, supreme judge of the world, their creator, and divine providence. In all four cases the references to a higher power appeal to the idea of inherent human dignity, never implying a role for god in government.

Finally, should there by an doubt about the author’s intentions, I offer you this quote from Thomas Jefferson in an April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” He went on to say in his concluding paragraphs, “But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…”

These are not the words from a man who would wish to insert god into the affairs of man. [read full article]

In 1996, I seen a lot of religious groups disregarding Separation of Church and State, and pushing biblical view on the diverse population regardless of others own religious belief and respect for others. I was disturbed that I didn’t see any Buddhist speaking out against these policies. I contacted one Buddhist temple, and asked the priest why I wasn’t seeing any Buddhist leaders speaking out against the in equality’s taking place, and he said because their not suppose to.

We have laws, common laws and basic understandings of Separation of Church and State, not to mention IRS tax codes to follow and respect, so why wouldn’t the Buddhist temples comply, they should. However, were living in a country where it appears that other faiths are no longer honoring our laws, and now we have no voice against the those who wish to oppress us. Buddhist temples are being target with hate in America, and I’ve heard several Christian preachers call Buddhist devil worshipers, even when the “devil” is a Christian god, not a Buddhist god. Buddhism has concepts of hell realms, but they are only concepts like bad day’s, or periods of time when your going through hard times as a result of your own actions.

Buddhists have been in America for more than one hundred fifty years. Their are Buddhist temple, schools, charity’s and universities all over America. So, surely Buddhist should also have representation in Washington, as other faith based initiative groups are in attendance.

“Religious Literacy Dictionary” in Stephen Prothero’s 2007 bestseller, Religious Literacy, devotes less than two pages to “Buddhism,” but spends seven lines making the point that “Buddhists have not been particularly active in American politics.” This notion, accurate or not, is probably the perception of most Americans, many of whom have little real awareness of the 2,500-year-old tradition to begin with. It may also explain why President Obama’s 25-member Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships (which just launched its official Web site) currently lacks a Buddhist representative, despite the presence of at least one appointee from the other four major world religions. [read full article]

Sounds like a good educational documentary for all to see. Love Richard Aoki’s comment: “We didn’t lose in the sixties, we just didn’t finish the job!”

Mass Action! I agree totally, it seems that’s the only way to get our message across! Though, some will call us Mobs, today. You know what, those oppressors, can call us whatever they want, but they will never kill the spirit of freedom! Find your Mob!

AOKI is a documentary film chronicling the life of Richard Aoki (1938-2009), a third-generation Japanese American who became one of the founding members of the Black Panther Party. Filmed over the last five years of Richard’s life, this documentary features extensive footage with Richard and exclusive interviews with his comrades, friends, and former students. Viewers will learn about Richard’s childhood in a WWII Japanese American concentration camp, growing up in West Oakland, and serving eight years in the U.S. military. [read more]

Climate deniers are afraid that people will lose jobs, but I don’t feel that to be true. When a nation gets together to do something they create jobs and invent new things for the better of the country. New jobs will also be created for greener energy, and companies don’t want to change because their CEO’s will lose money in their pockets, it’s these people who are funding research that has no scientific bases to their theories with regard to climate change. They won’t lose money if they change the way they do things.

They dispute the evidence we have to prove climate change, but they bring nothing to the table to prove otherwise.

The climate change news from Washington is cautiously encouraging. No one in power is listening to the climate skeptics any more; the economic stimulus package included real money for clean energy; a bill capping U.S. carbon emissions emerged, battered but still standing, from the House of Representatives, and might even survive the Senate. This, along with stricter emission standards in Europe and a big push for clean energy and efficiency standards in China, provides grounds for hope for genuine progress on emissions reduction.

But while climate policy is finally moving forward, climate science is moving faster. One discovery after another suggests the world is warming faster, and climate damages are appearing sooner, than anyone had expected. Much of the policy discussion so far has been aimed at keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 below 450 parts per million (ppm) – which was until recently thought to be low enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. But last year, James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, argued that paleoclimatic evidence shows 450 ppm is the threshold for transition to an ice-free earth. This would imply a catastrophic rise in sea levels, eventually flooding all coastal cities and regions.

The outliers are the handful of private consultant studies funded by partisan lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Using proprietary models (or their own adaptations of standard models), and pessimistic economic assumptions, these studies forecast that even mild U.S. proposals, such as last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, would cost many thousands of dollars per household and would cause widespread unemployment and economic dislocation. An analysis by journalist Eric Pooley documents the excessive, often uncritical attention given to these studies by the media.

I don’t know how “conservatives” or the majority of them, without any evidence at all can say that climate change is not occurring in a unnatural way! I mean the evidence is there where ever you look, and even other peoples from other cultures have oral history that states the same. Maybe they think because their a different culture that they don’t give a damn, but the facts remain that humans are causing a breakdown of our natural ecosystem where ever you look. This isn’t about some alleged “leftist” trap hole, I heard that commented by some conservative as well. Whether it be from peoples oral history or natural evidence all around us, from people getting sick to 10,000 year old sediment, earth core samples or melted thousand year old glaciers…!

I debated one lady who said; “the environment goes through a natural cycle every 70 to 100 years!”

Duh! That’s not even the point, and I think the issue is WAY over her head! I learned about the natural cycles of the eco system since grade school, yet I also knew about “global warming” since that time. We are not talking about the natural cycles that may occur every 100 years or so, and we’re not even talking about the seasonal changes or the changes of drought that we might see every few years. We are talking about the unnatural climate changes! Hello!

Not sure where people are getting their education these day’s, but I don’t think a lot of them are getting a full education from an accredited school. Something seems to be lacking, from science to even basic histories these day’s, and it’s even scary to see our leaders getting into office without a basic education.

The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19.

The research reveals that sediments retrieved by University at Buffalo geologists from a remote Arctic lake are unlike those seen during previous warming episodes.

The UB researchers and their international colleagues were able to pinpoint that dramatic changes began occurring in unprecedented ways after the midpoint of the twentieth century.

“The sediments from the mid-20th century were not all that different from previous warming intervals,” said Jason P. Briner, PhD, assistant professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. “But after that things really changed. And the change is unprecedented.”

The sediments are considered unique because they contain rare paleoclimate information about the past 200,000 years, providing a far longer record than most other sediments in the glaciated portion of the Arctic, which only reveals clues to the past 10,000 years. [see full article]

Typically, I used to watch all sources of news media [TV], and about six years ago watching Fox News, I had made a decision not to watch that channel because of their anchors type of “news” reporting, they became more personal rather than reporting the news, and it appears that they have only become worse since then.

I don’t really watch TV news, and get more of my news from reading it from journalism, or real news rather than an anchor who should be reporting the news over his personal opinions. I’m not a reporter, but I do have opinions, so I like to give my opinion on what I read and how I feel about it. That’s what my blogs are about.

News anchors are suppose to report the news as it is, not color it up or edit it in a biased way in order to favor one issue over another, that’s not journalism, and their suppose to keep their personal opinion to themselves when reporting the news. Otherwise it’s just tabloid news, and if I wanted that I would watch tabloid news.

The Obama administration’s recent characterization of Fox News is a long overdue acknowledgment of the obvious: Fox News is not a legitimate news organization — indeed, after many years of serving as the research and messaging wing of the Republican Party, it has now gone beyond even that, to become the electronic evangelist of an ultra-partisan and non-reality-based world view.

Historically speaking, White House criticism of the media has often been unseemly and defensive, with the president’s ire generally provoked by journalists who excel at their work — by asking cheeky questions, exposing important things that the president would prefer be kept secret, holding the powerful accountable and playing host to a vibrant and informed exchange of a wide range of political opinions.

But in this case, the critique is something else entirely. The litmus test is that the Obama White House is not upset at news gatherers for doing their job. What Obama and his aides are correctly pointing out is that the people working at Fox News are doing another job altogether.

The White House “attack” on Fox is being derided as bad politics, as ineffective and as a distraction from more important issues — all of which may be true. But doesn’t it kind of matter that, when it comes to the substance of what Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, and now even Obama himself have said, they’re exactly right?

NBC May 2008; It doesn’t take a trained psychologist to observe that Bush got angrier and angrier as the Engel interview went on….

Bush typically sits down with interviewers from Fox News — or, more recently, Politico — where he can count on more than his share of ingratiating softballs. But Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.

For instance, Engel noted: “A lot of Iran’s empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq.” He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: “So it doesn’t sound like there’s an end anytime soon.” He clearly upset Bush by saying that “on the ground,” the situation in Iraq “looks very bleak.” (Bush replied: “Well, that’s interesting you said that — that’s a little different from the surveys I’ve seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I’ve talked to, but you’re entitled to your opinion.”)…“The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals. That there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States.”

[That’s an understatement! I think Bush only went into Iraq because Saddam had threatened his father in 1992, and he wanted to get him back, meanwhile he lost all interest in the actual people (Bin Laden, and his Arab followers) who attacked during September 11th. Has everyone forgotten what Bush did during that fateful date? He didn’t bother calling the fighter jets, and instead he continued to read to the children because he alleges he “didn’t want to scare the children.”]